ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation (ICR) Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. ICR scientists have written excellent articles on "Vestigial" Structures, Fossils, Genetics, Mutations, "Junk DNA," Natural Selection, Age of The Earth, Dinosaurs and The Bible, etc., etc. Just peruse their articles archive.
DEBATE IS NOT OVER. In Darwin's time not enough science was known to refute macro-evolution. There was no understanding of genetics. Darwin thought the cell was just a simple glob. No one knew about DNA, RNA, proteins. Modern evolutionists now know, but the theory is entrenched as gospel and a lot of personal motives are at stake as well. Just saying that something evolved doesn't make it so! Schools should present both sides! Read my article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature can only work with the "cards" it has. Nature is not a genetic engineer! It can't invent new genes. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Imagine a non finished lung lying there trying to create itself and having to collaborate with trees; explaining to them that they need create themselves in such a way as to produce oxygen for the lung, in exchange for carbon dioxide. Imagine a blood vessel lying in the forest crying out to anything that would listen to please create itself as blood, so that the blood vessel would finally have a reason for being and so that the blood would also.
@Mr88playmaker Imagine a perfectly adapted anerobic microorganism exsisting meanwhile another adapted group of microorgansims is pumping massive amouts of free oxegen into the atmosphere. Oxegen kills most of the anerobic cells but a few are slightly better to at dealing with it that others, those survive and have offspring and some of those are better at dealing with the O2 than thier parents, millions of years later when you have lungs and blood they owe thier exsistance to those organisms.
I leave a bubble-gum wrapper on the sidewalk (and nevermind how the wrapper came into being; there's no explanation for that). It sits there long enough to become a telephone, then longer til it's a microwave oven; a few millions years later, its an ipod, and eventually turns into an airplane and then the space shuttle. Did the electrical wall socket, telephone lines.tv stations and spaceship launch pad create themselves PRIOR. How much prior?
What's sad (and funny) about the vein lying there in the forest crying out for something to please turn itself into blood so that the vein (and the blood) would have a reason for existing is that whatever pebble or piece of lint that would have agreed to accommodate would have said "sure, I'll turn myself into blood for ya BUT it'll be a few million YEARS."
Haha!
Evolution is a lot of FUN when you really think about it for what it is.
@Mr88playmaker So in the bible when it says that animals were created then man and then it says in the next chapter that man was created and then animals were, wich in your scientific opion is true?
A single bacteria today can only contain an equal or less amount of information than the same bacteria did a billion years ago. Animals never turned into people. The discovery of the genome makes Darwin's racist theory impossible. The only people defending evolution are Marxists.
Look at the title of this video and be real for once. The elite academics are Progressives / Marxists.
Marxists have a real problem with the Creator mentioned America's founding document because by law, God is our nationally and legally recognized, sole granter of rights and liberties. Every atheist in America MUST, and DOES officially recognize GOD (within their respective state constitution, and a million other state and federal ways).
Young people today are uneducated about the principles of freedom. Since the communist takeover movement of the mid 20th century, American kids have been programmed to think that there is something "secular" about a nation, unique among all others, whose citizens' rights and liberties are NOT granted by humans. America's model of government is unlike any other. The ONLY reason we have inalienable (guaranteed) rights in America is because we are a nation founded on our DISTRUST in human rulers.
Socialists have been working for decades to enslave American; destroy America from within. They seek to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and our free institutions of government. God is their biggest obstacle.
“My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy Capitalism. We are ruthless and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes we shall not disguise our terrorism. The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism.”
“America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its PATRIOTISM, its MORALITY and its SPIRITUAL LIFE. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.”
— Joseph Stalin (Communist Dictator)
“Give me your four year olds, and in a generation I will build a socialist state ----Destroy the family, you destroy the country.”
"I am for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself...I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal."
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism."
—Nikita Khrushchev (on the demise of America)
"We will bury your grand-children without firing a shot."
--Khrushchev (on turning the West communist from within)
"RELIGION, MORALITY and KNOWLEDGE are NECESSARY to GOOD GOVERNMENT, the PRESERVATION OF LIBERTY, and the happiness of mankind."
-- United States Supreme Court, 1892
"RELIGION must be considered as the FOUNDATION on which THE WHOLE STRUCTURE RESTS. In this age there can be no substitute for CHRISTIANITY; the great conservative element on which WE MUST RELY for THE PURITY and PERMANENCE of free institutions."
There are 3 forms of government competing for world dominance:
1. Secular /Atheist / Socialist model where HUMAN rulers decide your "rights & freedoms" with NO guarantee because what man gives man can take away. Our founders call this "TYRANNY of men."
2. Sharia: The Qu'ron is your constitution and HUMANS rule over you.
3. Judeo-Christian (USA) model: GOD is our sole granter of rights & liberties, power comes from GOD to us individually, we are sovereign and the government is our servant.
@Mr88playmaker USA is not a judeo christian model, is secular, actualy the judeo christian models where and are against human right from the beginning even the 10 comandments (except 3) are against human rights. Now Christians are imbracing human rights just because is politicaly correct not because they liked it from the beginning
@Mr88playmaker secular society has nothing to do with socialism or comunism. You can be from the right wing and also be secular like i am, Theocratic states are not democratic and they not embrace human rights. Secular states with separation of the church from the state are the only form of goverment where you can have democracy and freedom
Don't ever forget the glaring fact that our founding fathers EXCLUDED atheists from Government. They made it ILLEGAL for atheists to serve in government or testify in court. Yes, our founders imposed no "religious test" on government officials as to not show preference for one Christian denomination over another--- but think deep about what I',m telling you and you'll get a revelation as bright as the sun and as harsh as truth: NO ATHEISTS were allowed. Ya HAD to believe in God.
By the way, the so called separation of church and state doctrine is nowhere to be found in the United States Constitution. You can find it in the Russian constitution but not in ours. The communists introduced the idea of of separation of church and state into American courtrooms in the 1960s. Read the "Communist Goals For America" and you might have a revelation as to why you believe what you do. Hope you see the light. The truth shall set you free.
@Mr88playmaker 1st AUS const: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
@Mr88playmaker "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State". T Jefferson.
"practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" J. Madison
The purpose of the 1st Amendment is explained by its author:
"Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers."
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others."
The proverbial "wall" is specifically and legally defined, by law, as follows:
"CONGRESS shall make no LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof."
Congress (legislative branch) ALONE is RESTRICTED from doing ONE thing, and that is passing a law.. It's why Congress (and all Presidents including Jefferson) used the STATE capitol building for CHURCH services, several times per week, for 150 years (and that's just one example of millions)
@Mr88playmaker "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." J Adams
"In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it." ""When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."B Franklin
@Mr88playmaker "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." Thomas Paine.
Those all are Communists too???. Yes even if you like it or not there is separation between church and state. It has to be like this in orther to acomplish freedom of religion
Thomas Paine had ZERO to do with the founding of the nation, ZERO to with with the Declaration, ZERO to do with the Constitution.,, he was not even anywhere around. Thomas Paine was a guy who believed in GOD the Creator but had no religious affiliation. Thomas Paine CONDEMNED atheism. It's what he is most famous for.
@Mr88playmaker and the others?? Did you read the other quotes i show to you? they wanted religion separate from state Thomas Jefferson, J Adams, B Frankling, G Washintong. All of them belived in god, but they where deist, and have a negative opinions of the church and religion even some of them were acused to be Athiest by their peers. Face it, USA is based in the ideology of the ilustration and liberalism with church and religion separated form the state
There was not ONE founder ever accused of being an atheist. Otherwise, that founder would have been BANNED from Government (Atheists were NOT allowed to serve in Government).
The founders ALL believed in God. A few of them argued among themselves over THEOLOGY. Some arguing in favor of Unitarianism and others in favor of Trinitarianism. In their zeal, they would call one or another a "Heretic" (based on theology) but NEVER an "Atheist."
@Mr88playmaker "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State". T Jefferson
I said NON of them were athiest but they were deist and anti-religion and anti-church authority. They were ACUSED by RIVALS but of curse were just unjustified, they BELIVED in GOD.
@shadowmax889 "I said NON of them were athiest but they were deist..."
A Deist is a person who believes in the Creator. ALL of the founders believed in God; some were more 'religious' than others. The LEAST religious of them agreed with the most religions that RELIGION and MORALITY are ESSENTIAL to good government; that governments are instituted among men to PROTECT our GOD-GIVEN rights and liberties that PRE-EXIST, and SUPERSEDE ALL human constitutions & governments past, present & future.
“A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could”
"World dictatorship can be established only when the victory of Socialism has been achieved in certain countries or groups of countries … [and] when these federation of republics have finally grown into a world union of Soviet Socialist Republics uniting the whole of mankind under the hegemony of the international proletariat organized as a state."
@Mr88playmaker Odd because the offical (and legally enforced) docterine of both the soviet union and nazis was Lamarkian evolution, Darwin's theory was banned by both.
@Mr88playmaker Evolution doesn't take place in a vacuum, without interdependency on its environment. Your proposition is a non sequitur, a straw man. It has no relevancy outside of a comic strip.
@Mr88playmaker You're not making no sense. Matter in the form of habitat and resources certainly does affect the outcome of survival, which decides the survival of the genome. But put in the context of your politicization of science, comments about the '60s, Communism, and religion, and I will consider the source.
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "what is a false dichotomy and what is logic..(END QUOTE)
Let me give you some friendly advice. Nobody is going to entertain a serious conversation with you so long as your philosophy rejects intelligence, logic and reason. Get yourself first on page one. Your questions do have answers but know this--and think about this deep if you can: When the student is ready the teacher will arrive.
I prefer the "let's assume you are right" argument. It goes something like this:
Let's assume you are right. God created all of nature in its present form. Okay. Now, what have we learned? Have we learned what our purpose on earth is? Can we use your idea to improve medicine? No? Then what is your point?
Now let's assume we are right. Can we use our idea to improve medicine? Yes? When? Antibiotics? Check. AIDS research? Check. Cell therapy? Check. Okay. So that's my point.
It's not my job to address your "religious" or "theological" questions. That's your business. Good luck on whatever if anything you discover in the way of answers in that area.
As for MEDICINE. Biologists, physicians & all people connected -however loosely- to the medical field do their job EXPECTING to find exquisitely high tech & purposeful DESIGN. It's like that in all fields of Science. It is BECAUSE of the design that's expected and found, that all scientific breakthroughs are made.
Free inexhaustible energy is real!But the Oil companies want these technologies unknown to the masses,Find the real deal, a free energy device at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,The revolution begins!
Kudos to all those good, honest, and kind, folks out there that are trying their best to push back all that ID movement crap. They need to gain a hell of a lot more support. More than ever!
Check my favorites lists and look for a video called A Case For A Creotor. It covers Irreducible Complexity among other things. Check the description on Irreducible Complexity and the compare them to YOUR definition of it (as per your post) and ask yourself whether you missed something. Don't forget to put on your thinking cap.
I see by your profile and by your retort that you are from Denmark and Danish is probably your primary language.
Please don't take pgpwnit's comment too personally - I doubt that he knew that English is your second language, and that you may know a third and maybe a fourth language.
I commend you on your command of the English language - if I tried to formulate a thought in another language, it would look a lot worse than yours.
There's a reason why the Maxists define the situation as one of "science VS religion" as opposed to "True Science VS Evolution." It's no mystery why these atheist videos use vague and ambiguous language to "suggest" that the True Science of Intelligent Design is but theological nonsense. The true science points toward a Creator. That fact creates unattractive social & political implications for atheists; but atheist should NOT silence Science because of it! Run a Google: DNA tiny code.
@Mr88playmaker Ignorance -_-. You ever take a flu shot or any sort of vaccination ? Well thats based entirely on evolution. Why the hell do we have an appendix? That'd be pretty unintelligent of god to just give us for the most part a non usable organ. That same organ can kill us or cause serious harm if infected. lol it doesn't create " unattractive social and political implications" , it creates annoyance and frustration. How many ID advocates are not christian? Non, its just religion
@Mr88playmaker i'll be specific aboutwhat you said. They don't call it "science vs religion" to cause a lie. They say it because all the "evidence" for Intelligent design is evidence against evolution
. EVEN if the majority of these ID claims were correct, there is still no proof for I.D . NO testable experiments, no observable connection to reality.
"IF" your article was real, we would say , "evolution is false" . We wouldn't say" proof in design" . Logical fallacy, false dichotomy
Hahaha!! The running joke over here is that whole "false dichotomy!" crap you people run to when your back is against the wall!! Hahaha!! One, you don't know what it means. and two, if you did it doesn't apply. Either way, it;s funny. :)
@Mr88playmaker And how would i get a nobel prize if the majority of the science community already accepts the fact ID is religion? Go on, read a science magazine, read interviews of respected scientist , Or whatever. ID is a joke. All of what we know about life is based on evolution. If that school of science was rocked, we would have to change our understandings of psychology , biochemistry , anatomy ,, sociology, and many others. It's silly, there is TOO MUCH EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "All of what we know about life is based on evolution. " (END QUOTE)
"All WE know"? Whoah HEY now...speak for yourself! Don't go putting that dumb Darwin crap on ME! All YOU, YOU, YOU know is that ,,, this that and the other... whales turn into folks etc.
As for ME and MOST people in America (and England) I happen to know better.
@Mr88playmaker tell me what a false dichotomy is already . And tell me why i said it. Ignoring my point is just proof of your inability to analyze this logically.
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "Ignoring my point is just proof of your inability to analyze this logically. " (END QUOTE)
You screwed up in your post and here's how: You accidentally said "logic."
Atheists maintain that logic arises out of meaningless, random chaos; and is continually evolving via meaningless, random chaos.
Conclusion: Your atheism excludes you from all things logic. It's inescapable. Examine what you wrote in your post and you'll see that you are way in over your head.
@Mr88playmaker your ignoring my points and outlandishly misrepresenting theories. Your failure to recognize my points shuts you out of actually critically thinking. When one is to analyze a situation. he does not throw out several shaky premises, and ignore responses. Your just closing your mind.
There is no atheist federation of sorts that sends out uniformed knowledge. It is not an organized religion. And that is by no means a theory on the birth of logic
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "your ignoring my points and outlandishly misrepresenting theories...(END QUOTE)
That's not true and you know it. My point is VALID.
There are only TWO choices. Pick one & own it:
(1) Intelligence arises from an INTELLIGENT source
(2) Intelligence arises from a NON-Intelligent source
ONLY the atheist position can NOT be logically defended. If you are so "intelligent and logical" then you should not be upset. If your position is valid, why are you embarrassed by it?
@Mr88playmaker what is a false dichotomy and what is logic , Then give me an example of each, or else you have proved your self to be ignorant and fool to anyone that has half a brain . because it will have shown you proudly asserted things you were obviously ignorant on .
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "what is a false dichotomy and what is logic ..." (END QUOTE)
Let me give you some friendly advice. Nobody is going to entertain a serious conversation with you so long as your philosophy rejects intelligence, logic and reason. Get yourself first on page one. Your questions do have answers but know this--and think about this deep if you can: When the student is ready the teacher will arrive.
@mercenary616 Here is proof of your ignorance right here. When you said " your philosophy blocks intelligence, logic and reason" , you didn't even realize logic and reason meant the same thing in those context. Good god man, just stop talking.
@mercenary616 (QUOTE): "Here is proof of your ignorance right here. When you said " your philosophy blocks intelligence, logic and reason" ..." (END QUOTE)
@Mr88playmaker you obviously don't remember the initial point i made.I NEVER said ANYTHING about where life comes from. I do have ideas about it, and have read into it . But what i was saying was a response to the whole idea of intelligent design. The false dichotomy . You kept trying to take the debate into other grounds that was far from my initial point laid. The only response you made was that I did not know what a false dichotomy was. Then asked you to define it. Then you went on a tangent
@Mr88playmaker i was giving your "proof"(which addresses about all the "proof" for intelligent design). an analysis. The reason i asked what a false dichotomy is for the reason it completely relevant to this It defeats it all, and you are just ignoring it. .
Give me ONE universal science finding that is related to Intelligent design, please.
Your conclusion is that life comes from an intelligent source? Give me one premise for that idea
If and when you were honestly ready and truly wanting to know about the values and applications of logic and reason (notice I distinguish between the two) I could lay something on you that would change your world. The problem is that you don't want to know. The fact that you call yourself "atheist" speaks volumes to the fact that you are a lazy thinker --that is to say, you can't think beyond your hat. You are so by CHOICE. Out of rebellion. You cant have wisdom if you hate it.
@Mr88playmaker your hopeless. Totally hopeless. man. Telling you for the last time,. When you brought up the dna thing, i told you it was a false dichotomy and didn't prove intelligent design even if true.
Its just totally pointless, because i KNOW you are just to act like i never said that. Ignore, and bring up some other crap. You are going to further embarrass your position and act like your right. Pretending(or honestly) not realizing what i said defeated your initial evidence.This is dumb
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "When you brought up the dna thing, i told you it was a false dichotomy..." (END QUOTE)
Regarding my view on symbolic information:
My position is that matter can NOT assign meaning to symbols. I agree with Einstein and others that symbolic information or language, represents a category of reality distinct from matter and energy.
@Mr88playmaker the symbolic argument is as valid as the guy who thinks god is real because he thinks he sees jesus face in his tortilla.
So we have this illusion of a language? What of it? it isn't REALLY a language. A language is patterns of sound and coupling octaves that describe details and objects to other people. Similarities? yes, but doesn't mean anything. People are accustomed to finding patterns in everyday things. Including things that are completely natural.
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "the symbolic argument is as valid as the guy who thinks god is real because he thinks he sees jesus face in his tortilla." (END QUOTE)
Albert Einstein's position on the nature of symbolic information was not based on his seeing Jesus in a tortilla. Einstein was not even religious. Try again.
@Mr88playmaker dont quote mine einstein. Read this quote of his " I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)"
Einstein never said the structure of anything proved god.
As I stressed to drive my point: Einstein was NOT a Theist. Now ask yourself why Einstein and I agree together about the nature of symbolic infomration, and you (an atheist) disagree with us.
@Mr88playmaker so if he wasn't a theist , whats your point? Are you trying to tell me that you are saying he doesn't believe in god , yet at the same time thinks that the sequence of dna can only be created by a sentient being? What does einstein think of symbols then?
And just because someone intelligent believes something doesn't make it true. the truth can stand on its own .
Einstein took no interest in theology. As far as anyone knows he was a deist in loose and more traditional sense or an agnostic.
The reason that DNA serves as the ultimate deathblow to Evolutionary theory is because DNA is encoded with information. Have you wondered why all the atheist propaganda these days? The entire Evolution Industry is caving. Thousands of careers and reputations & Government grants are killed by "the langauge of life."
@Mr88playmaker yeah, you just proved to me you had no idea why you brought up einstein. Now, you know whats crumbling? The sense of credibility you had that vanquished the first comments where you crudely ignored my statements. And all your ignorant statements i have countered. Evolution isn't crumbling, it is flourishing. Unbiasedly look into it and you will see the whole of the science community thinks Intelligent design is joke. A very dry one we wish would just end already.
@Mr88playmaker DNA codes for the order of amino acids that make a protein, how does that prove evolution of species wrong? The code and ERV markes would not be the way they are unless evolution happens.
Genetic information writes/creates all things biological.
Information creates your chemicals to begin with. Example: Information writes'/creates your whole brain; and yet it is a scientific fact that information only arises from a mind.
@Mr88playmaker this is silly? which human languages aren't communicated with people? I think your forgetting that language existed before written form . There are obvious differences between the two. The similarities are only similarities . Snowflakes look intricate and appear to be designed by someone, but are only an illusion. Because their shape is not due to someone creating an art piece
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "which human languages aren't communicated with people? I think your forgetting that language existed before written form ." (END QUOTE)
Correct! You know what;s cool? When you don't know what you're saying, every once in a while, you accidentally make sense without realizing it, and you make my point.
@Mr88playmaker dude. your trying to say that dna is the same thing is human speech . It is a coded sequence. Not someone communicating with another person. there is differences, by some peoples definitions , you can call it a "language".Even if you technically call it a language for sake of argument, it doesn't make it impossible to replicate by nature.
@Mr88playmaker what is the important difference between the two right now. And define "symbolic information" and "date" because this is just getting dumber and dumber
@Mr88playmaker due to my sleepiness , i didn't even address your linguist comparisons. THERE ISN"T GRAMMAR IN THE DNA CODE! Where are the exclamation marks, commas, annunciation marks, and paragraph format . And "meaning" and "intended" purpose are essentially the same thing
@Mr88playmaker you do realize punctuation is grammar right? Please look it up.
Grammar is the rules of a language. Punctuation is specifically the order of phrasing sentences and dealing with pauses .
Yes i just had to explain to you what grammar and punctuation were. Something you could have googled before you replied . You are intelligently lazy and biased . If debating you wasn't already proved a waste of time, it has now.
@Mr88playmaker honestly dude. I'll give YOU advice. Google false dichotomy, take a class on critical thinking. For god sakes,, learn how to structure a counter argument. You ignore EVERYTHING you don't want to answer. And you still think you are intellectually superior . Your arguments aren't even arguments, they are only conclusions. You can't hope to be taken seriously by anyone if you just talk like a total pretentious jackass and ignore statements that totally prove you wrong.
@Mr88playmaker I countered your the proof of Intelligent design. Don't you remember the false dichotomy? Thats as much of proof as i need. Tell em what a false dichotomy is so i can explain how i beat you. I know what it is already, i just want you to read it yourself for god sakes. go to wikipedia and look it up!
If you know what a false dichotomy is, then you know the following: The ONLY way you can PROVE my question is a "false dichotomy" is of you were able to come up with a THIRD answer (which you can not).
(1) Intelligence arises from an INTELLIGENT source.
(2) Intelligence arises from a NON-Intelligent source.
There's NO 3rd option as even "flying unicorns" constitute as Intelligent Source.
Think hard. Think of a 3rd option and PROVE it's a "false dichotomy"!!
Merely "calling" it a "false dichotomy" doth not a false dichotomy make: you have to prove why and how that is, and you should be able to do it in 20 words or less, demonstrating that there are NOT only 2 options but at LEAST one more option.
You see? This is why atheism is a problem for atheists. What;s funny is that I can show you a lot of other examples of things that prove the same thing I'm showing you now. Atheism is illogical nonsense.
@Mr88playmaker ou finally looked up it! Congratulations, im honestly glad you did. that the dna "proof" you gave me had the ultimate idea as following . "there are problems with idea of gene mutating in a period of time and still functioning" . . Although that is misrepresenting truth. I will run with it. you are saying " because dna can't mutate, the only possible explanation is a magical man poofed it into existence" And isn't what you argued against order out of nothingness?
@Mr88playmaker Your saying, " if evolution cannot account for this, that makes it created by god" . No, if evolution was even in trouble we would say " we do not know" . we wouldn't jump to another conclusion. Thats the false dichotomy. Because if evolution is wrong, there can be other theoretical ideas of life coming into existence. Destroying one idea does not prove another. You understand now?
@Mr88playmaker yes you did. In the evidence you showed -_-.
So if you never said that. then your proof means nothing. Because that is their conclusions. They tried to discredit gradual change over time through mutation to say intelligent design was true. That was THEIR conclusion, if you trust this article. and you do not realize they made that point. You need to re read your research material
Examine your post and you'll notice that your only argument is to basically call me a liar, and then go on to provide ZERO evidence of your own to refute my so called "lie".
Can you provide evidence that is connected to reality, proving that information and language are made of matter?
If you can, you should forget about me and run like hell to pick up your Nobel Prize.
@Mr88playmaker First of all. Explain to me in detail what a false dichotomy is . And tell me what similarities it has to this situation . Where did i call you a liar
I am not the one making the giant claims, Intelligent design is. What i am saying is ID does NOT have evidence. If you look at ALL the evidence they ever show,their pieces of evidences are attacks on evolution.
If i hypothetically found a problem in the theory of gravity,i would not leap and say "it is because of a space monster" .
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "If i hypothetically found a problem in the theory of gravity,i would not leap and say "it is because of a space monster" .(END QUOTE)
Don't be silly, Gravity can be studied and observed. Evolution can NOT.
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "If i hypothetically found a problem in the theory of gravity,i would not leap and say "it is because of a space monster" (END QUOTE)
Don't be silly. Gravity can be examined and observed. Evolution can not.
@Mr88playmaker Science does not use magic, voodoo or gods. ID is not science, sceintists don't do ID. Search ' proof of evolution ' here on Youtube, there is enough evidence right here.
Darwin knew nothing about DNA. He lived back in the time of Abraham Lincoln. Thanks to modern science we now know that a single bacteria today can only contain an equal or less amount of information than say did the same bacteria a gazillion-trillion years ago, The modern discovery of DNA has destroyed the very foundation of Darwin's silly and racist theory. It turns out that the cell is an information system, and we all know matter does not add information to the genome.
@Mr88playmaker Yes, Darwin did not know about DNA and still showed how evoltuion works. DNA proves evoltuion > Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are lingering remnants of failed viral infection, which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. Humans and chimps have 98,000 ERV in the exact same location. Common ancestor?
The only thing that DNA shows about a 'common ancestor' is that the common ancestor is 100 percent HUMAN (not ape or animal). Next time you read an article of anybody suggesting that monkeys evolved into humans, first see if it's a modern day, peer reviewed science paper; and pay very close attention to the wording. Actual Science papers use very specific language. Only Atheist laymen assert (as a fact) that monkeys evolved into people.
Humans, watermelons and clouds contain the same percentage of water. That does not mean that you evolved from a watermelon. In fact, just as genetics prove that watermelons do not turn into people, genetics also prove that animals do not, and never did, turn into humans. It is genetically impossible.
Here's something else that has forced atheists to abandon the lab and run off instead to write books slamming religion. There is now a thing that is known by them as The Law of Irreducible Complexity which they refuse to call a law but IS indeed, inescapably, a PROVEN law. Darwinists are in denial. It is impossible to refute the law of Irreducible Complexity; and that law makes Darwin's theory 100 percent impossible.
@Mr88playmaker Who cares what atheists think. There is no LAW of IC. Laws apply to Math only. And you can't prove something is IC. IC is an argument for a desinger, there are no fact to support it. And it lost in court.
This mathematical reality was explained by Albert Einstein when he said: "The distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent." Time, said Einstein, is not at all what it seems. It does not flow in only one direction, and the future exists simultaneously with the past.
To the amazement of everyone, the ONLY book on earth to repeatedly make such a claim (2,000 years prior to Einstein is the Bible. In fact Jesus said: "Before Abraham WAS, I AM."
the most ridiculous thing is that it would be wise to do so, but there just isnt any out there by actual standards. lol. they would like to think so, but finding "synomical" anecdotes about and or for faith isnt going to hold water is it? lol
@jacobromu I think they SHOULD teach ID in school. But it should be followed up with something to the effect of "now, in order to understand why this is bullshit, you need to know that..."
Oh man, Mogley is an idiot!
RexFut 20 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, could not have sustained itself eternally. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from traits having survival value. It doesn't produce those traits. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation (ICR) Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. ICR scientists have written excellent articles on "Vestigial" Structures, Fossils, Genetics, Mutations, "Junk DNA," Natural Selection, Age of The Earth, Dinosaurs and The Bible, etc., etc. Just peruse their articles archive.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DEBATE IS NOT OVER. In Darwin's time not enough science was known to refute macro-evolution. There was no understanding of genetics. Darwin thought the cell was just a simple glob. No one knew about DNA, RNA, proteins. Modern evolutionists now know, but the theory is entrenched as gospel and a lot of personal motives are at stake as well. Just saying that something evolved doesn't make it so! Schools should present both sides! Read my article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature can only work with the "cards" it has. Nature is not a genetic engineer! It can't invent new genes. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 6 months ago
Imagine a non finished lung lying there trying to create itself and having to collaborate with trees; explaining to them that they need create themselves in such a way as to produce oxygen for the lung, in exchange for carbon dioxide. Imagine a blood vessel lying in the forest crying out to anything that would listen to please create itself as blood, so that the blood vessel would finally have a reason for being and so that the blood would also.
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
@Mr88playmaker I'm calling "Poe". You cannot be this stupid.
djarm67 7 months ago 3
@djarm67
Be honest with yourself. Unless you can prove that what I said is "stupid" you've still got egg on your face.
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
@Mr88playmaker I'm still calling "Poe". This comment suggesting that the first is not stupid is even stupider. lol
djarm67 7 months ago 3
@djarm67 apparently he is that stupid.
licensedtolive 3 months ago
@Mr88playmaker What you said was stupid. It has nothing to do with Origin of species or science.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@Mr88playmaker Imagine a perfectly adapted anerobic microorganism exsisting meanwhile another adapted group of microorgansims is pumping massive amouts of free oxegen into the atmosphere. Oxegen kills most of the anerobic cells but a few are slightly better to at dealing with it that others, those survive and have offspring and some of those are better at dealing with the O2 than thier parents, millions of years later when you have lungs and blood they owe thier exsistance to those organisms.
phookadude 7 months ago
@phookadude
So "millions of years" is the key!
I leave a bubble-gum wrapper on the sidewalk (and nevermind how the wrapper came into being; there's no explanation for that). It sits there long enough to become a telephone, then longer til it's a microwave oven; a few millions years later, its an ipod, and eventually turns into an airplane and then the space shuttle. Did the electrical wall socket, telephone lines.tv stations and spaceship launch pad create themselves PRIOR. How much prior?
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
What's sad (and funny) about the vein lying there in the forest crying out for something to please turn itself into blood so that the vein (and the blood) would have a reason for existing is that whatever pebble or piece of lint that would have agreed to accommodate would have said "sure, I'll turn myself into blood for ya BUT it'll be a few million YEARS."
Haha!
Evolution is a lot of FUN when you really think about it for what it is.
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
@Mr88playmaker So in the bible when it says that animals were created then man and then it says in the next chapter that man was created and then animals were, wich in your scientific opion is true?
phookadude 7 months ago
@phookadude
A single bacteria today can only contain an equal or less amount of information than the same bacteria did a billion years ago. Animals never turned into people. The discovery of the genome makes Darwin's racist theory impossible. The only people defending evolution are Marxists.
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
Look at the title of this video and be real for once. The elite academics are Progressives / Marxists.
Marxists have a real problem with the Creator mentioned America's founding document because by law, God is our nationally and legally recognized, sole granter of rights and liberties. Every atheist in America MUST, and DOES officially recognize GOD (within their respective state constitution, and a million other state and federal ways).
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
Young people today are uneducated about the principles of freedom. Since the communist takeover movement of the mid 20th century, American kids have been programmed to think that there is something "secular" about a nation, unique among all others, whose citizens' rights and liberties are NOT granted by humans. America's model of government is unlike any other. The ONLY reason we have inalienable (guaranteed) rights in America is because we are a nation founded on our DISTRUST in human rulers.
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
Socialists have been working for decades to enslave American; destroy America from within. They seek to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and our free institutions of government. God is their biggest obstacle.
“My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy Capitalism. We are ruthless and ask no quarter from you. When our turn comes we shall not disguise our terrorism. The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism.”
— Karl Marx (Father of Communism, atheist)
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
“America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its PATRIOTISM, its MORALITY and its SPIRITUAL LIFE. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.”
— Joseph Stalin (Communist Dictator)
“Give me your four year olds, and in a generation I will build a socialist state ----Destroy the family, you destroy the country.”
— Vladimir Lenin (Communist Dictator)
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
"I am for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself...I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal."
- Roger Noah Baldwin (Founder of the ACLU)
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism."
—Nikita Khrushchev (on the demise of America)
"We will bury your grand-children without firing a shot."
--Khrushchev (on turning the West communist from within)
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
"RELIGION, MORALITY and KNOWLEDGE are NECESSARY to GOOD GOVERNMENT, the PRESERVATION OF LIBERTY, and the happiness of mankind."
-- United States Supreme Court, 1892
"RELIGION must be considered as the FOUNDATION on which THE WHOLE STRUCTURE RESTS. In this age there can be no substitute for CHRISTIANITY; the great conservative element on which WE MUST RELY for THE PURITY and PERMANENCE of free institutions."
-- House Judiciary Committee, 1854
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
"Religion is the basis and Foundation of Government."
--James Madison (Father of the U.S. Constitution)
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
There are 3 forms of government competing for world dominance:
1. Secular /Atheist / Socialist model where HUMAN rulers decide your "rights & freedoms" with NO guarantee because what man gives man can take away. Our founders call this "TYRANNY of men."
2. Sharia: The Qu'ron is your constitution and HUMANS rule over you.
3. Judeo-Christian (USA) model: GOD is our sole granter of rights & liberties, power comes from GOD to us individually, we are sovereign and the government is our servant.
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
@Mr88playmaker USA is not a judeo christian model, is secular, actualy the judeo christian models where and are against human right from the beginning even the 10 comandments (except 3) are against human rights. Now Christians are imbracing human rights just because is politicaly correct not because they liked it from the beginning
shadowmax889 7 months ago
@Mr88playmaker secular society has nothing to do with socialism or comunism. You can be from the right wing and also be secular like i am, Theocratic states are not democratic and they not embrace human rights. Secular states with separation of the church from the state are the only form of goverment where you can have democracy and freedom
shadowmax889 7 months ago
@shadowmax889
Don't ever forget the glaring fact that our founding fathers EXCLUDED atheists from Government. They made it ILLEGAL for atheists to serve in government or testify in court. Yes, our founders imposed no "religious test" on government officials as to not show preference for one Christian denomination over another--- but think deep about what I',m telling you and you'll get a revelation as bright as the sun and as harsh as truth: NO ATHEISTS were allowed. Ya HAD to believe in God.
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
@shadowmax889
By the way, the so called separation of church and state doctrine is nowhere to be found in the United States Constitution. You can find it in the Russian constitution but not in ours. The communists introduced the idea of of separation of church and state into American courtrooms in the 1960s. Read the "Communist Goals For America" and you might have a revelation as to why you believe what you do. Hope you see the light. The truth shall set you free.
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mr88playmaker 1st AUS const: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
shadowmax889 7 months ago
@Mr88playmaker "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State". T Jefferson.
"practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" J. Madison
They were Communist???
shadowmax889 7 months ago
@shadowmax889
The purpose of the 1st Amendment is explained by its author:
"Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers."
--Fisher Ames
(Framer of the First Amendment)
Mr88playmaker 6 months ago
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others."
--Thomas Jefferson
Mr88playmaker 6 months ago
@shadowmax889
The proverbial "wall" is specifically and legally defined, by law, as follows:
"CONGRESS shall make no LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof."
Congress (legislative branch) ALONE is RESTRICTED from doing ONE thing, and that is passing a law.. It's why Congress (and all Presidents including Jefferson) used the STATE capitol building for CHURCH services, several times per week, for 150 years (and that's just one example of millions)
Mr88playmaker 6 months ago
@Mr88playmaker "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." J Adams
"In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it." ""When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."B Franklin
shadowmax889 7 months ago
@Mr88playmaker "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." Thomas Paine.
Those all are Communists too???. Yes even if you like it or not there is separation between church and state. It has to be like this in orther to acomplish freedom of religion
shadowmax889 7 months ago
@shadowmax889
Thomas Paine had ZERO to do with the founding of the nation, ZERO to with with the Declaration, ZERO to do with the Constitution.,, he was not even anywhere around. Thomas Paine was a guy who believed in GOD the Creator but had no religious affiliation. Thomas Paine CONDEMNED atheism. It's what he is most famous for.
Mr88playmaker 6 months ago
@Mr88playmaker and the others?? Did you read the other quotes i show to you? they wanted religion separate from state Thomas Jefferson, J Adams, B Frankling, G Washintong. All of them belived in god, but they where deist, and have a negative opinions of the church and religion even some of them were acused to be Athiest by their peers. Face it, USA is based in the ideology of the ilustration and liberalism with church and religion separated form the state
shadowmax889 6 months ago
@shadowmax889
There was not ONE founder ever accused of being an atheist. Otherwise, that founder would have been BANNED from Government (Atheists were NOT allowed to serve in Government).
The founders ALL believed in God. A few of them argued among themselves over THEOLOGY. Some arguing in favor of Unitarianism and others in favor of Trinitarianism. In their zeal, they would call one or another a "Heretic" (based on theology) but NEVER an "Atheist."
Mr88playmaker 6 months ago
@Mr88playmaker "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State". T Jefferson
I said NON of them were athiest but they were deist and anti-religion and anti-church authority. They were ACUSED by RIVALS but of curse were just unjustified, they BELIVED in GOD.
shadowmax889 6 months ago
@shadowmax889 "I said NON of them were athiest but they were deist..."
A Deist is a person who believes in the Creator. ALL of the founders believed in God; some were more 'religious' than others. The LEAST religious of them agreed with the most religions that RELIGION and MORALITY are ESSENTIAL to good government; that governments are instituted among men to PROTECT our GOD-GIVEN rights and liberties that PRE-EXIST, and SUPERSEDE ALL human constitutions & governments past, present & future.
Mr88playmaker 6 months ago
“A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could”
-- Vladimir Lenin (Communist)
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
"World dictatorship can be established only when the victory of Socialism has been achieved in certain countries or groups of countries … [and] when these federation of republics have finally grown into a world union of Soviet Socialist Republics uniting the whole of mankind under the hegemony of the international proletariat organized as a state."
--Josef Stalin
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
@Mr88playmaker Odd because the offical (and legally enforced) docterine of both the soviet union and nazis was Lamarkian evolution, Darwin's theory was banned by both.
phookadude 7 months ago
@Mr88playmaker Imagine a troll posting an intelligent and coherent statement.
Akira625 6 months ago
@Mr88playmaker lungs didn't evolve that way and you know it.
TechnicallyTechnical 6 months ago
@Mr88playmaker
Imagine a mudskipper.
rkyeun 6 months ago
@Mr88playmaker Evolution doesn't take place in a vacuum, without interdependency on its environment. Your proposition is a non sequitur, a straw man. It has no relevancy outside of a comic strip.
licensedtolive 3 months ago
@licensedtolive
Matter does not add new information to the genome. DNA killed Darwin.
Mr88playmaker 3 months ago
@Mr88playmaker You're not making no sense. Matter in the form of habitat and resources certainly does affect the outcome of survival, which decides the survival of the genome. But put in the context of your politicization of science, comments about the '60s, Communism, and religion, and I will consider the source.
licensedtolive 3 months ago
Mr88playmaker was created with small genitals, a small brain, and a large ego.
MrDBarch 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "what is a false dichotomy and what is logic..(END QUOTE)
Let me give you some friendly advice. Nobody is going to entertain a serious conversation with you so long as your philosophy rejects intelligence, logic and reason. Get yourself first on page one. Your questions do have answers but know this--and think about this deep if you can: When the student is ready the teacher will arrive.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
Comment removed
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
Comment removed
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
I prefer the "let's assume you are right" argument. It goes something like this:
Let's assume you are right. God created all of nature in its present form. Okay. Now, what have we learned? Have we learned what our purpose on earth is? Can we use your idea to improve medicine? No? Then what is your point?
Now let's assume we are right. Can we use our idea to improve medicine? Yes? When? Antibiotics? Check. AIDS research? Check. Cell therapy? Check. Okay. So that's my point.
dracarys666 1 year ago
Comment removed
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
It's not my job to address your "religious" or "theological" questions. That's your business. Good luck on whatever if anything you discover in the way of answers in that area.
As for MEDICINE. Biologists, physicians & all people connected -however loosely- to the medical field do their job EXPECTING to find exquisitely high tech & purposeful DESIGN. It's like that in all fields of Science. It is BECAUSE of the design that's expected and found, that all scientific breakthroughs are made.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Free inexhaustible energy is real!But the Oil companies want these technologies unknown to the masses,Find the real deal, a free energy device at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,The revolution begins!
polysemousncrk 1 year ago
Creationist motto: If I can't prove I'm right, I'll just prove you wrong.
False Dichotomies ftw!
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
If we teach creationism, why not alchemy, flat-earth theory, holocaust denial? Why not those too? WE GOTTA GIVE ALL THE THEORIES AN EQUAL SAY, GUYS.
technicallyabsurd 2 years ago 10
Texans. Go figure.
I keed I keed!
but seriously,
Kudos to all those good, honest, and kind, folks out there that are trying their best to push back all that ID movement crap. They need to gain a hell of a lot more support. More than ever!
Thank you for the great series.
Cheers!
Cheegro 2 years ago 5
'Irreducible complexity' is Fundyspeak for:
A) I am too lazy to try to figure out how things happened
B) I am too stupid to understand the mechanisms which brought about complex structures
C) I know the truth, but, hey, I have to make a buck somehow
D) Thinking makes my head hurt
E) If it's not in the Bible - it doesn't exist
F) Gotta go - American Idol's on
bushputz 2 years ago 15
@bushputz
Check my favorites lists and look for a video called A Case For A Creotor. It covers Irreducible Complexity among other things. Check the description on Irreducible Complexity and the compare them to YOUR definition of it (as per your post) and ask yourself whether you missed something. Don't forget to put on your thinking cap.
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
steven dawkings.. net
blauwen 2 years ago
"major misunderstanding" should be expanded to "major and, sometimes, deliberate misunderstanding", Doctor :P
RyuDarragh 2 years ago 2
why do i keep seeing a pathern of redstates/low IQ states.. and "teatching the contravercy/creationismidea" overlapping?
painterQjensen 2 years ago 17
Fascinating, isn't it?
ericflynnster 2 years ago 2
Ironic atrocious spelling.
pgpwnit 2 years ago 2
MEN, du forstod stadig beskeden.
Har jeg ret?
so FUCK you and the BITCH you rode in on :)
painterQjensen 2 years ago
painterQjensen:
I see by your profile and by your retort that you are from Denmark and Danish is probably your primary language.
Please don't take pgpwnit's comment too personally - I doubt that he knew that English is your second language, and that you may know a third and maybe a fourth language.
I commend you on your command of the English language - if I tried to formulate a thought in another language, it would look a lot worse than yours.
bushputz 2 years ago
@painterQjensen because your eyes are evolved enoug... ^^
Acrimonator 1 year ago
It's a good thing that Texas has citizens like AaronRa!... otherwise they'd be known as Little Mexico.
jimrbsn 2 years ago 13
Aron Ra like his Egyptian namesake is the bringer of light.
:D
buzzausa 2 years ago 4
Creationists: pissing in the well of knowledge for over a century!
RadarKat73080 2 years ago 40
@RadarKat73080 i'd call it vomit
mercenary616 1 year ago
There's a reason why the Maxists define the situation as one of "science VS religion" as opposed to "True Science VS Evolution." It's no mystery why these atheist videos use vague and ambiguous language to "suggest" that the True Science of Intelligent Design is but theological nonsense. The true science points toward a Creator. That fact creates unattractive social & political implications for atheists; but atheist should NOT silence Science because of it! Run a Google: DNA tiny code.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker Ignorance -_-. You ever take a flu shot or any sort of vaccination ? Well thats based entirely on evolution. Why the hell do we have an appendix? That'd be pretty unintelligent of god to just give us for the most part a non usable organ. That same organ can kill us or cause serious harm if infected. lol it doesn't create " unattractive social and political implications" , it creates annoyance and frustration. How many ID advocates are not christian? Non, its just religion
mercenary616 1 year ago
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "You ever take a flu shot or any sort of vaccination ? Well thats based entirely on evolution." (END QUOTE)
Re-read everything I stated and then ask yourself if anything you're saying has anything at all to do with what I stated.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker i'll be specific aboutwhat you said. They don't call it "science vs religion" to cause a lie. They say it because all the "evidence" for Intelligent design is evidence against evolution
. EVEN if the majority of these ID claims were correct, there is still no proof for I.D . NO testable experiments, no observable connection to reality.
"IF" your article was real, we would say , "evolution is false" . We wouldn't say" proof in design" . Logical fallacy, false dichotomy
mercenary616 1 year ago
@mercenary616
Hahaha!! The running joke over here is that whole "false dichotomy!" crap you people run to when your back is against the wall!! Hahaha!! One, you don't know what it means. and two, if you did it doesn't apply. Either way, it;s funny. :)
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker And how would i get a nobel prize if the majority of the science community already accepts the fact ID is religion? Go on, read a science magazine, read interviews of respected scientist , Or whatever. ID is a joke. All of what we know about life is based on evolution. If that school of science was rocked, we would have to change our understandings of psychology , biochemistry , anatomy ,, sociology, and many others. It's silly, there is TOO MUCH EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION
mercenary616 1 year ago
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "All of what we know about life is based on evolution. " (END QUOTE)
"All WE know"? Whoah HEY now...speak for yourself! Don't go putting that dumb Darwin crap on ME! All YOU, YOU, YOU know is that ,,, this that and the other... whales turn into folks etc.
As for ME and MOST people in America (and England) I happen to know better.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker tell me what a false dichotomy is already . And tell me why i said it. Ignoring my point is just proof of your inability to analyze this logically.
mercenary616 1 year ago
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "Ignoring my point is just proof of your inability to analyze this logically. " (END QUOTE)
You screwed up in your post and here's how: You accidentally said "logic."
Atheists maintain that logic arises out of meaningless, random chaos; and is continually evolving via meaningless, random chaos.
Conclusion: Your atheism excludes you from all things logic. It's inescapable. Examine what you wrote in your post and you'll see that you are way in over your head.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker your ignoring my points and outlandishly misrepresenting theories. Your failure to recognize my points shuts you out of actually critically thinking. When one is to analyze a situation. he does not throw out several shaky premises, and ignore responses. Your just closing your mind.
There is no atheist federation of sorts that sends out uniformed knowledge. It is not an organized religion. And that is by no means a theory on the birth of logic
So what is a false dichotomy?
mercenary616 1 year ago
Comment removed
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "your ignoring my points and outlandishly misrepresenting theories...(END QUOTE)
That's not true and you know it. My point is VALID.
There are only TWO choices. Pick one & own it:
(1) Intelligence arises from an INTELLIGENT source
(2) Intelligence arises from a NON-Intelligent source
ONLY the atheist position can NOT be logically defended. If you are so "intelligent and logical" then you should not be upset. If your position is valid, why are you embarrassed by it?
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker what is a false dichotomy and what is logic , Then give me an example of each, or else you have proved your self to be ignorant and fool to anyone that has half a brain . because it will have shown you proudly asserted things you were obviously ignorant on .
mercenary616 1 year ago
Comment removed
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "what is a false dichotomy and what is logic ..." (END QUOTE)
Let me give you some friendly advice. Nobody is going to entertain a serious conversation with you so long as your philosophy rejects intelligence, logic and reason. Get yourself first on page one. Your questions do have answers but know this--and think about this deep if you can: When the student is ready the teacher will arrive.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@mercenary616 Here is proof of your ignorance right here. When you said " your philosophy blocks intelligence, logic and reason" , you didn't even realize logic and reason meant the same thing in those context. Good god man, just stop talking.
mercenary616 1 year ago
@mercenary616 (QUOTE): "Here is proof of your ignorance right here. When you said " your philosophy blocks intelligence, logic and reason" ..." (END QUOTE)
I never said that. Try again.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker you obviously don't remember the initial point i made.I NEVER said ANYTHING about where life comes from. I do have ideas about it, and have read into it . But what i was saying was a response to the whole idea of intelligent design. The false dichotomy . You kept trying to take the debate into other grounds that was far from my initial point laid. The only response you made was that I did not know what a false dichotomy was. Then asked you to define it. Then you went on a tangent
mercenary616 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker i was giving your "proof"(which addresses about all the "proof" for intelligent design). an analysis. The reason i asked what a false dichotomy is for the reason it completely relevant to this It defeats it all, and you are just ignoring it. .
Give me ONE universal science finding that is related to Intelligent design, please.
Your conclusion is that life comes from an intelligent source? Give me one premise for that idea
mercenary616 1 year ago
Comment removed
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "i was giving your "proof"(which addresses about all the "proof" for intelligent design). an analysis." (END QUOTE)
Okay, I see what you're saying.
(QUOTE) "Your conclusion is that life comes from an intelligent source? Give me one premise for that idea" (END QUOTE)
I have explained that thoroughly in great detail. Maybe you missed my earlier posts. READ my posts about DNA.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@mercenary616
If and when you were honestly ready and truly wanting to know about the values and applications of logic and reason (notice I distinguish between the two) I could lay something on you that would change your world. The problem is that you don't want to know. The fact that you call yourself "atheist" speaks volumes to the fact that you are a lazy thinker --that is to say, you can't think beyond your hat. You are so by CHOICE. Out of rebellion. You cant have wisdom if you hate it.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker your hopeless. Totally hopeless. man. Telling you for the last time,. When you brought up the dna thing, i told you it was a false dichotomy and didn't prove intelligent design even if true.
Its just totally pointless, because i KNOW you are just to act like i never said that. Ignore, and bring up some other crap. You are going to further embarrass your position and act like your right. Pretending(or honestly) not realizing what i said defeated your initial evidence.This is dumb
mercenary616 1 year ago
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "When you brought up the dna thing, i told you it was a false dichotomy..." (END QUOTE)
Regarding my view on symbolic information:
My position is that matter can NOT assign meaning to symbols. I agree with Einstein and others that symbolic information or language, represents a category of reality distinct from matter and energy.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker the symbolic argument is as valid as the guy who thinks god is real because he thinks he sees jesus face in his tortilla.
So we have this illusion of a language? What of it? it isn't REALLY a language. A language is patterns of sound and coupling octaves that describe details and objects to other people. Similarities? yes, but doesn't mean anything. People are accustomed to finding patterns in everyday things. Including things that are completely natural.
mercenary616 1 year ago
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "the symbolic argument is as valid as the guy who thinks god is real because he thinks he sees jesus face in his tortilla." (END QUOTE)
Albert Einstein's position on the nature of symbolic information was not based on his seeing Jesus in a tortilla. Einstein was not even religious. Try again.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker dont quote mine einstein. Read this quote of his " I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)"
Einstein never said the structure of anything proved god.
mercenary616 1 year ago
@mercenary616
As I stressed to drive my point: Einstein was NOT a Theist. Now ask yourself why Einstein and I agree together about the nature of symbolic infomration, and you (an atheist) disagree with us.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker so if he wasn't a theist , whats your point? Are you trying to tell me that you are saying he doesn't believe in god , yet at the same time thinks that the sequence of dna can only be created by a sentient being? What does einstein think of symbols then?
And just because someone intelligent believes something doesn't make it true. the truth can stand on its own .
mercenary616 1 year ago
@mercenary616
Einstein took no interest in theology. As far as anyone knows he was a deist in loose and more traditional sense or an agnostic.
The reason that DNA serves as the ultimate deathblow to Evolutionary theory is because DNA is encoded with information. Have you wondered why all the atheist propaganda these days? The entire Evolution Industry is caving. Thousands of careers and reputations & Government grants are killed by "the langauge of life."
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker yeah, you just proved to me you had no idea why you brought up einstein. Now, you know whats crumbling? The sense of credibility you had that vanquished the first comments where you crudely ignored my statements. And all your ignorant statements i have countered. Evolution isn't crumbling, it is flourishing. Unbiasedly look into it and you will see the whole of the science community thinks Intelligent design is joke. A very dry one we wish would just end already.
mercenary616 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker DNA codes for the order of amino acids that make a protein, how does that prove evolution of species wrong? The code and ERV markes would not be the way they are unless evolution happens.
gregrutz 8 months ago
Genetic information writes/creates all things biological.
Information creates your chemicals to begin with. Example: Information writes'/creates your whole brain; and yet it is a scientific fact that information only arises from a mind.
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mr88playmaker ''information only arises from a mind.'' Good, for a minute there I thought you were going to say the information came from a god.
gregrutz 7 months ago 2
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "So we have this illusion of a language? What of it?" (END QUOTE)
What you call an "illusion" (which by the way you observe and utilize every day) linguists call language.
Linguistics 101: For something to be rightly called a language, it
must contain the following elements:
(1) an alphabet or coding system
(2) correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words)
(3) meaning (semantics)
(4) an intended purpose.
That doesn't sound like a "illusion" me!
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker this is silly? which human languages aren't communicated with people? I think your forgetting that language existed before written form . There are obvious differences between the two. The similarities are only similarities . Snowflakes look intricate and appear to be designed by someone, but are only an illusion. Because their shape is not due to someone creating an art piece
mercenary616 1 year ago
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "which human languages aren't communicated with people? I think your forgetting that language existed before written form ." (END QUOTE)
Correct! You know what;s cool? When you don't know what you're saying, every once in a while, you accidentally make sense without realizing it, and you make my point.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker dude. your trying to say that dna is the same thing is human speech . It is a coded sequence. Not someone communicating with another person. there is differences, by some peoples definitions , you can call it a "language".Even if you technically call it a language for sake of argument, it doesn't make it impossible to replicate by nature.
mercenary616 1 year ago
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "Snowflakes look intricate and appear to be designed by someone, but are only an illusion." (END QUOTE)
Symbolic Information and data are two different things. Try again.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker what is the important difference between the two right now. And define "symbolic information" and "date" because this is just getting dumber and dumber
mercenary616 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker due to my sleepiness , i didn't even address your linguist comparisons. THERE ISN"T GRAMMAR IN THE DNA CODE! Where are the exclamation marks, commas, annunciation marks, and paragraph format . And "meaning" and "intended" purpose are essentially the same thing
mercenary616 1 year ago
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "THERE ISN"T GRAMMAR IN THE DNA CODE! Where are the exclamation marks, commas, annunciation marks... (END QUOTE)
Pay attention. I said grammar NOT punctuation.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker you do realize punctuation is grammar right? Please look it up.
Grammar is the rules of a language. Punctuation is specifically the order of phrasing sentences and dealing with pauses .
Yes i just had to explain to you what grammar and punctuation were. Something you could have googled before you replied . You are intelligently lazy and biased . If debating you wasn't already proved a waste of time, it has now.
mercenary616 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker honestly dude. I'll give YOU advice. Google false dichotomy, take a class on critical thinking. For god sakes,, learn how to structure a counter argument. You ignore EVERYTHING you don't want to answer. And you still think you are intellectually superior . Your arguments aren't even arguments, they are only conclusions. You can't hope to be taken seriously by anyone if you just talk like a total pretentious jackass and ignore statements that totally prove you wrong.
mercenary616 1 year ago
@mercenary616
You're not getting it.
(A) I maintain that Intelligence arises from an INTELLIGENCE source.
[MY position is scientifically sound, and can be logically defended ].
(B) YOU maintain that Intelligence arises from a NON-Intelligent source.
[Your position is nonscientific and can NOT be logically defended.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker I countered your the proof of Intelligent design. Don't you remember the false dichotomy? Thats as much of proof as i need. Tell em what a false dichotomy is so i can explain how i beat you. I know what it is already, i just want you to read it yourself for god sakes. go to wikipedia and look it up!
there you go, i found you a link even.
mercenary616 1 year ago
@mercenary616
If you know what a false dichotomy is, then you know the following: The ONLY way you can PROVE my question is a "false dichotomy" is of you were able to come up with a THIRD answer (which you can not).
(1) Intelligence arises from an INTELLIGENT source.
(2) Intelligence arises from a NON-Intelligent source.
There's NO 3rd option as even "flying unicorns" constitute as Intelligent Source.
Think hard. Think of a 3rd option and PROVE it's a "false dichotomy"!!
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
Merely "calling" it a "false dichotomy" doth not a false dichotomy make: you have to prove why and how that is, and you should be able to do it in 20 words or less, demonstrating that there are NOT only 2 options but at LEAST one more option.
You see? This is why atheism is a problem for atheists. What;s funny is that I can show you a lot of other examples of things that prove the same thing I'm showing you now. Atheism is illogical nonsense.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker ou finally looked up it! Congratulations, im honestly glad you did. that the dna "proof" you gave me had the ultimate idea as following . "there are problems with idea of gene mutating in a period of time and still functioning" . . Although that is misrepresenting truth. I will run with it. you are saying " because dna can't mutate, the only possible explanation is a magical man poofed it into existence" And isn't what you argued against order out of nothingness?
mercenary616 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker Your saying, " if evolution cannot account for this, that makes it created by god" . No, if evolution was even in trouble we would say " we do not know" . we wouldn't jump to another conclusion. Thats the false dichotomy. Because if evolution is wrong, there can be other theoretical ideas of life coming into existence. Destroying one idea does not prove another. You understand now?
mercenary616 1 year ago
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "Your saying, " if evolution cannot account for this, that makes it created by god" " (END QUOTE)
I never said that or anything like it. Check the record.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker yes you did. In the evidence you showed -_-.
So if you never said that. then your proof means nothing. Because that is their conclusions. They tried to discredit gradual change over time through mutation to say intelligent design was true. That was THEIR conclusion, if you trust this article. and you do not realize they made that point. You need to re read your research material
mercenary616 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mr88playmaker and why don't you tell me what logic is too? because its obvious you have no idea what you are talking about
mercenary616 1 year ago
@mercenary616
Examine your post and you'll notice that your only argument is to basically call me a liar, and then go on to provide ZERO evidence of your own to refute my so called "lie".
Can you provide evidence that is connected to reality, proving that information and language are made of matter?
If you can, you should forget about me and run like hell to pick up your Nobel Prize.
Einstein and I would owe you an apology!
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker First of all. Explain to me in detail what a false dichotomy is . And tell me what similarities it has to this situation . Where did i call you a liar
I am not the one making the giant claims, Intelligent design is. What i am saying is ID does NOT have evidence. If you look at ALL the evidence they ever show,their pieces of evidences are attacks on evolution.
If i hypothetically found a problem in the theory of gravity,i would not leap and say "it is because of a space monster" .
mercenary616 1 year ago
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "If i hypothetically found a problem in the theory of gravity,i would not leap and say "it is because of a space monster" .(END QUOTE)
Don't be silly, Gravity can be studied and observed. Evolution can NOT.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@mercenary616 (QUOTE) "If i hypothetically found a problem in the theory of gravity,i would not leap and say "it is because of a space monster" (END QUOTE)
Don't be silly. Gravity can be examined and observed. Evolution can not.
Mr88playmaker 1 year ago
@Mr88playmaker Science does not use magic, voodoo or gods. ID is not science, sceintists don't do ID. Search ' proof of evolution ' here on Youtube, there is enough evidence right here.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz
Evolution is illogical and hokey nonsense.
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
@Mr88playmaker How do you know, you have never studied it and don't know how it works?
How do you explain the fossil record, trilobites? How do you explain dinosaurs with feathers?
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz
Darwin knew nothing about DNA. He lived back in the time of Abraham Lincoln. Thanks to modern science we now know that a single bacteria today can only contain an equal or less amount of information than say did the same bacteria a gazillion-trillion years ago, The modern discovery of DNA has destroyed the very foundation of Darwin's silly and racist theory. It turns out that the cell is an information system, and we all know matter does not add information to the genome.
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
@Mr88playmaker Yes, Darwin did not know about DNA and still showed how evoltuion works. DNA proves evoltuion > Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are lingering remnants of failed viral infection, which occurred in an ancestor's sex cell and got propagated in its offspring. The viral insertion site is completely random and finding one in the same location in two individuals indicates they each had that same ancestor. Humans and chimps have 98,000 ERV in the exact same location. Common ancestor?
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz
The only thing that DNA shows about a 'common ancestor' is that the common ancestor is 100 percent HUMAN (not ape or animal). Next time you read an article of anybody suggesting that monkeys evolved into humans, first see if it's a modern day, peer reviewed science paper; and pay very close attention to the wording. Actual Science papers use very specific language. Only Atheist laymen assert (as a fact) that monkeys evolved into people.
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
@Mr88playmaker Evolution says you are 100% Human, 100% Ape, 100% Primate, 100% mammal, 100% tetrepod, 100% vertebrate, 100% Animal.
Modern Science says you are classifies as 100% Human, 100% Ape, 100% Primate, 100% mammal, 100% tetrepod, 100% vertebrate, 100% Animal.
''only atheist laymen'' and Scientists say you have a common ancestor with modern monkeys.
Evolution also say all human are the same. IF Neanderthals were still alive it would be different.
gregrutz 7 months ago
@gregrutz
Humans, watermelons and clouds contain the same percentage of water. That does not mean that you evolved from a watermelon. In fact, just as genetics prove that watermelons do not turn into people, genetics also prove that animals do not, and never did, turn into humans. It is genetically impossible.
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
Comment removed
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
Here's something else that has forced atheists to abandon the lab and run off instead to write books slamming religion. There is now a thing that is known by them as The Law of Irreducible Complexity which they refuse to call a law but IS indeed, inescapably, a PROVEN law. Darwinists are in denial. It is impossible to refute the law of Irreducible Complexity; and that law makes Darwin's theory 100 percent impossible.
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
@Mr88playmaker Who cares what atheists think. There is no LAW of IC. Laws apply to Math only. And you can't prove something is IC. IC is an argument for a desinger, there are no fact to support it. And it lost in court.
gregrutz 7 months ago
Comment removed
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
This mathematical reality was explained by Albert Einstein when he said: "The distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent." Time, said Einstein, is not at all what it seems. It does not flow in only one direction, and the future exists simultaneously with the past.
To the amazement of everyone, the ONLY book on earth to repeatedly make such a claim (2,000 years prior to Einstein is the Bible. In fact Jesus said: "Before Abraham WAS, I AM."
Mr88playmaker 7 months ago
@Mr88playmaker Wow... "before Abraham WAS, I AM"?? You're actually equating that with Einstein's statement?? Really??
atheistram 7 months ago
@RadarKat73080 you can see one doing it right now in the comments section -_-
mercenary616 1 year ago
Teach the evidence against evolution, if you can find any haha.
jacobromu 2 years ago 28
the most ridiculous thing is that it would be wise to do so, but there just isnt any out there by actual standards. lol. they would like to think so, but finding "synomical" anecdotes about and or for faith isnt going to hold water is it? lol
somberlight 2 years ago 8
I think that's exactly what judge Scalia meant in his ruling.
buzzausa 2 years ago
Sadly, Scalia probably thinks god created HIM specially and all at once.
middlekk 2 years ago 3
@middlekk If that's true that's the best argument for atheism I ever heard.
Darkstar1484 1 year ago
@jacobromu I think they SHOULD teach ID in school. But it should be followed up with something to the effect of "now, in order to understand why this is bullshit, you need to know that..."
infectingthecrypts 2 years ago 8
@infectingthecrypts
LMAO
Exactly!
Bear5177 2 years ago